Russia will have to pay it again.
It would hardly be possible to find people who publicly and openly spoke, or spoke at any time in stories against justice. And at least so far they have not achieved justice - in the sense of a just structure of society. Otherwise, we would not talk about this requirement today.
However, in the current situation, the issue of justice ceases to be an exclusively humanistic and ethical-philosophical issue - it becomes a question of the country's survival - not only of the existing society, but also of the country in its historical, cultural and geopolitical understanding. The position of Russia / the USSR as a superpower of the XNUMXth century was provided not only by its resources and the strength of consolidated power - the very strength of this consolidated power was provided by its support from a consolidated society. Support, which was based on the fact that, on the one hand, most of society considered the created social conditions as fair, and on the other hand, the fact that a deeply layered system of social justice was objectively created in society.
The strength of the USSR internationally rested on the fact that at least most of its existence was perceived in the rest of the world as a moral leader of civilization opposing the “Old World”, the world of embodied injustice. And the fall of government, and disregard for the USSR at the end of the 1980-1990-s. were caused precisely by the destruction, during the psychological war of the end of 1980-s, of this image and confidence in the validity of this device.
The country was divided into parts, perceived as a loser and as a prey for world centers of power. The attempt of the Russian Federation, identified by Putin as a “preserved part of the USSR,” to restore the normal state of affairs, met with stubborn resistance from these centers, primarily from the main geopolitical rival, the United States. The pressure on Russia today is comparable to that which was put on it after 1917.
Then she stood and won in the course of almost a quarter-century period of confrontation, although economically in 1920-s was much weaker than today. And it won precisely because of the image of the moral leader and the force of gravity of its alternative peace-building.
Today, the Russian Federation has no image of moral leadership and social justice.
The concept of social justice.
Justice, like any ethical category, very ambiguously correlates with political reality. Even if one does not take into account the positions of consistent cynicism and social Darwinism, the very possibility of measuring political reality by ethical categories is in doubt.
One way or another, we are faced with different basic levels of understanding of justice. For example, I will give two of them. 1. Is it fair that all people feel good? After all, they are basically equal? Probably fair. This is the level of understanding at which we proceed from the postulate: "It would be nice if ...".
Denote it as the level of universal good. However, he instantly faces his own limitations. Good to ensure the right of people to life? Good. What does this mean specifically? Immortality. I want to believe that at some level of development it will be achieved, but even if we ignore the old fears about turning immortality into eternal old age, this is clearly not something that can be a top priority issue of the political and social struggle. Hence the thought that talking about justice is without purpose without real consideration of the possible, i.e. excluding available resources.
It is possible to distribute only what is produced, hence justice and its concrete implementation depends on the level of development of production and the available surplus product. Accordingly, if we have a production capable of ensuring the right to realize all abilities for 1% of the population, we have one understanding of justice, for 10% - another, for half - a third, etc.
On the real agenda, the question of creating an abundant society and realizing human potential for all arises only at a high stage of development, at least when large-scale machine production occurs, and more real, as we now understand, when it reaches the level of post-industrial development, when the main factor production becomes not the physical labor force, but the heuristic abilities of the person.
Prior to the creation of such a society, we inevitably face the problem of distribution principles, and in two dimensions: on the one hand, it is a question of “fairness” of distribution, on the other hand, the issue of distribution expediency from the point of view of society’s development prospects, where we have the problem of the need to concentrate resources in the most promising points of society.
2. Put here the question of the second level of justice. Is it fair for a person to get what he deserves? And did not get what he did not deserve? It seems fair.
But the question of "deserved" (distracting, for simplicity, from the controversial and interesting question about the criteria of deserved) extends not only to the relationship of determining the amount of wages and other remuneration.
In different societies there are different principles of distribution: according to work, according to capital, according to force, by skill, etc. The choice of the distribution principle, i.e. the choice of the type of social structure, ultimately, the type of justice, is carried out by society itself. And it must be responsible for its choice.
Indeed, in modern Russia, people really are not guaranteed the right to life, the realization of the realization of their talents is not guaranteed, the lack of disadvantage is not guaranteed due to the existence of unfair privileges in society. The level of such guarantees is significantly lower than in the former Soviet society.
However, this is the result of the choice made by society in the era of perestroika and the beginning of the 90s. Any conversation that such a choice was made erroneously, “in crafty embarrassment,” is unfounded. First, because "ignorance of political and historical laws does not exempt from political and historical responsibility." Secondly, because if a mistake is made, it can only be corrected if one realizes this mistake and redeems it. History is not a kindergarten - however, and there, in order to correct an error, it must at least be recognized and promised “not to do this again”.
To get a higher type of justice than the one that is implemented today in Russia, it must be won. Justice is nothing without the power to enforce justice. And since, having made its choice in the 90s, society despised the entire price it paid for the former, higher type of justice in the course of terrible wars, during the creation of its economy in 20-30-s and its restoration in 40 -50-e, - one can doubt that it would be fair if it were spared the consequences of this choice for a price substantially lower.
Only an understanding of this fact and an internal willingness to pay can be at least some basis for a claim for something more fair than what the USSR countries have today.
Just justice - that is, ideas about justice, about a fair structure - always and in all significant social groups were different. And it's not only that the ideas of justice among some groups of the population often disagreed with the ideas of justice among their social counterparties — that is, those who first saw the obstacle in establishing what they themselves considered fair. Strictly speaking, neither the slave owner, nor the feudal lord, nor the capitalist ever considered the relations that ensured their dominant position in society — unfair. They thought it fair that the slave worked well for the soup given to him, the peasant regularly paid frills, the worker did not strike.
And today, probably, neither Gorbachev, nor Chubais, nor Kudrin will say that their disastrous experiments on the country were not fair. The first one will declare that true justice was covered in order to destroy the social and political system that existed in the USSR. The second is that privatization was ultimately the embodiment of justice, because it transferred property from the hands of the “inefficient owner” to the hands of the “effective”. The third is that state prices were unfair because they deprived a separate manufacturer of the right to set the price for his product that he would consider fair.
Similarly, Adolf Hitler would deeply disagree with the claim that his actions were unfair - he would, on the contrary, argue that the injustice was that the “superior race” was underestimated by humanity — and that justice itself destroy or bring to the service of her other, lower races.
It would seem that one can say that since the ideas about justice differ from the haves of the minority and the poor majority, then, from the point of view of democracy, the latter should be taken as the basis. That is why it is fair to somehow subordinate the desire for justice to those who have power for the desire for justice for the have-nots. The fact is, however, that the poor themselves have notions of justice, as a rule. And not in small things, but in conceptual understanding. If we take it as a starting point that a slave considers his position as a slave to be unfair, then with this assessment of his present state he can see the correction of such injustice sometimes in diametrically opposite things.
One slave will strive to stop being a slave and get slaves himself. The other is to feed him better and not give out an empty soup, but to have meat every day. And it is desirable that once a week they let him go for a walk. The third is to see justice in running away. The fourth is to rebel, free the maximum number of slaves, and with them break out of the slave-owning state. The fifth is to destroy the power of slave owners and slavery itself.
By the way, those who support the latter point of view will differ in their ideas about how to replace the destroyed formation. And everything will be repeated on the new turn of the spiral: a part will demand to confirm the power of the released and turn the former masters into slaves. A part - will consider that it is necessary to establish laws obliging gentlemen to feed slaves in a satisfying way. Part - just offer to release the current slaves. Part of it will put forward a project for transferring slaves into putting on pieces of the land they cultivate with the obligation to pay for using it. Finally, part will defend the idea of the destruction of slavery and all forms of exploitation in principle. And all their demands will be justified by their ideas of justice.
Therefore, if we raise the question of justice today - with all the precariousness and uncertainty of this requirement - we have to speak not only about what is fair, but also about what is truly valid at this stage of history and accordingly about the criteria of justice.
Since the 1917 year, the Social Democratic and Socialist parties have increasingly come to power in capitalist countries, with all the known successes they have been able to achieve, the main problem with which they faced time after time became the bloating of the state apparatus, bureaucratization and a slowdown in development - which became the basis for their growing criticism by conservatives and neo-conservatives (sometimes we are sometimes called “neoliberals”). This was the cause of the first wave of their fall.
Then, already in the 90-ies, the “left march” again began in Europe and the Social Democrats began to return to power again. But it turned out that they face all the same problems - and in many cases they simply do not have a plan and project to move to the new state that society dimly expects. And it became increasingly clear that the problems of justice are not solved exclusively through the sphere of distribution and redistribution. Redistribute can only be created wealth. The main question of justice is not how to divide - but how to produce.
Which state of affairs will ultimately be recognized by society as fairer: a device in which social differentiation is low and the decile coefficient is, say, ¼ (the bottom ten% have an income of $ 1000, and the top ten percent have an income of $ 4000), or a device, at which the decile ratio is 1/20 (the lowest 10% have $ 10 each, and the top 000% have $ 200 each)?
The relative equality of income (not to mention equalizing it) does not solve the issue of equity. Even raising incomes alone does not solve it. Because an increase in consumption is only an increase in animal functions of the body.
It is true, of course, that without improving human well-being, it is impossible to ensure the development of society. But this well-being is truly meaningful not when it leads to full contentment, but when it becomes a person’s liberation from devoting his whole life to the care of earning food - and becomes the basis for both his creative production activities and his personal Development. The dead end of social democracy was precisely that its requirements were mainly reduced to guarantees for the socially unprotected. And they did not lead to the acceleration of the development of either production or personality. They always wanted to offer the hungry fish. Even if it had to be taken away from the rich. And freeing a person from hunger, at the same time freed him from responsibility and desire for activity. In this, the Communists were superior to them in that they relied on the development of production, so that a person, joining this production, would have an opportunity for his own realization — that is, offered (until a certain moment) not fish, but “nets for her fishing.
A new stage of development (both historical and industrial) is today in the rejection of the choice between the "society of enrichment" and "society of consumption." And in the conscious creation of a "society of knowledge", "society of development."
Ultimately, justice is not about people consuming more and more. Justice is that a person should be freed from submitting himself to his own current consumption. It is fair to ensure that a person is provided with the possibility of an ever greater free development of his personality, an ever fuller realization of all the abilities and potentials inherent in him. In the words of Marx: "Every person capable of becoming Raphael must have a real opportunity to become one."
And this is a fundamentally different level of justice. It is based on overcoming the provision of both the “right to enrichment” (“fairness of enrichment”) and “the right to consume” (“fairness of consumption”), in achieving the level of ensuring the “right to development” - that is, “fairness of development” .
Relatively recently, in July 2013, the VTsIOM published a survey of social justice. Theoretically, the implementation of social justice is a characteristic feature of the fourth level of statehood, where the main requirement is the general political category "Brotherhood" (at the previous levels: 1-i - "WORLD", 2-i - "Freedom", 3-i - "Equality" ). At this level, social rights are the dominant type of law, the main fear from which the state should be secure - the fear of social and material disadvantage, the main desire of society - the desire for material wealth, ensuring equality of chances, and the main political and institutional conclusion - the social state.
There are collisions in the relations of this fourth level of statehood with the third, political and institutional, the conclusion of which is the “rule of law”. The problem is that the law is generally in a difficult relationship with ethics. Including because legality by definition often differs from justice. The very understanding of justice is not universal. And at different stages of historical development, and among different social classes - it is different.
VTsIOM offered six possible answers.
First, “That the standard of living of all would be approximately the same, there would be neither rich nor poor” - and today 20% of citizens agree with this; the second, “That the position of each member of society is determined by his labor efforts,” 12 percent think so; the third “That everyone can achieve what he is capable of” - 13%; the fourth "In equality of all before the law" - 36%; fifth “In guarantees for the socially unprotected, in the social responsibility of the rich” - 11%; sixth “There has never been any social justice in society and never will be,” - 7%. These are different representations of different political and ideological trends and different societies. "Equality before the law" theoretically
social justice has no relation at all. But since there are people who share this opinion, there is such an interpretation.
The notion of “neither rich nor poor” is a kind of general idea of early, egalitarian socialism.
"The position of each member of society is determined by his labor efforts" - a representation of an established socialist society and general socialist theory. “The opportunity for everyone to achieve what he is capable of” - unless, of course, we are talking about the ability of everyone to steal what they can get - this is a representation of communism.
“Guarantees for the socially unprotected, social responsibility of the rich” is a representation of a welfare state, which can be interpreted as a transition from capitalism to socialism, a kind of compromise between them.
More important in general is that the sum of socialist, transitional-socialist and communist ideas, which is 56% (20 + 12 + 13 + 11 %%), is much higher than the bourgeois 35% proper. The latter, even together with the negativist social Darwinian 7%, are much inferior to the former. “If we develop the idea of social justice, which of the following two options is closer to you? (closed-ended question, one answer) ". The first "Social justice, strong state, order, national interests" - is gaining 58%. The second "Social justice, democracy, solidarity, freedom" - 28%.
The first variant correlates to a certain degree with the socialist ideas, the second (with the exception of the category “solidarity”) - with the capitalist ones. And, interestingly, in this case, the dynamics look more obvious: in the first formulation - an increase from 2004 to 2013 year from 50 to 58 %%, in the second - in the same time, a reduction from 33 to 28%.
The main difference in the wording of the first and second questions is the inclusion in the second statist point. That is, when divided into socialist-communist ideas and capitalist ideas, there are almost no dynamics, the first consistently prevail over the latter. With the inclusion of the statist component - it is for her there is a marked increase.
That is, relatively speaking, the perceptions are being strengthened, precisely to the variant of conditionally “state socialism”, which, in fact, is close in its presentation to the early socialism created in its time in the USSR.
Bill of Social Rights.
President Putin in a modified and expanded form outlined the task of creating a state of social justice in Russia as early as the first presidential period, declaring the transformation of the tasks of social development of society into the main direction of Russian state policy.
Formally, this task was also declared by the Constitution of 1993. Her 7 article reads: “1. The Russian Federation is a social state whose policy is aimed at creating conditions that ensure a decent life and free development of a person. ”
In general, there is some irony in the fact that the Constitution, adopted as the final act of the anti-socialist and anti-communist counter-revolution of 1991-93, was forced to write as one of its basic provisions not only a characteristic of the socialist vector of development ("Social state"), but also taken directly from the works of Marx and the program of the Communist Party, the goal of "creating conditions for the free development of man." Let us compare Marx: "The free development of everyone is a condition for the free development of all." But it so happens in history that sometimes those who turned out to be the victor politically are forced, obeying objective historical requirements, to use the program of their defeated opponents.
For a long time, this article remained an empty political declaration. Traditionally, the tasks of a social state include both creating equal starting conditions for representatives of different social groups of society, and providing guarantees for everyone in the following basic areas of social life:
- guarantees of real (basically - equal) opportunities for all citizens to access education;
- guarantees of real provision of opportunities for medical care - and, more broadly, - possibilities of protecting and maintaining one's health;
- guarantees of the real provision of the right to obtain labor capable of providing a decent standard of living and appropriate professional qualifications and abilities of a citizen;
- guarantees of the real right to protect the interests of the employee in the context of labor disputes;
- guarantees decent pension provision.
In social justice, strictly speaking, there are two levels of its implementation: a decent life for everyone (including social security) - and the possibility of free development, the realization of their human potential. That is - passive social justice (security), and active social justice (possibility of development).
The simplest and lowest level of justice is a kind of “charitable level”, the level of state care for the poor, bringing those at the level of poverty to some minimally acceptable level of “noble poverty”.
The most difficult, the highest is, in particular, the level of creating conditions described by the 7 article of the Constitution, providing for everyone the opportunity for free development - and, therefore - the possibility of realizing all his natural abilities. That is, by and large, the creation of such social conditions in which every person in the country is free from the need to subordinate his life to the search for food and other simple forms of life, and has the opportunity to devote it to creative personal self-realization.
Actually, the experience of Soviet socialist construction included at least three stages of different interpretations of the mutual responsibilities of man and society.
Initially, in the “heroic” period of early socialist development, at the initial level, the initial need for balance and unity of these duties was recognized. However, due to the peculiarities of this stage and those overstresses that had to ensure the ongoing development and solution of the tasks facing society, in practical approximation the man’s duty in his service to society still came to the fore.
Later, from about the end of the 60's. a definite attempt was made to "repay debts" by society, which resulted in the thesis of the task of increasing satisfaction of material needs. It was after this that the reality of a "prosperous society" was created, which revealed its contradictions, limitations and insufficiency by the end of the 70s. Consumption was practically elevated to the rank of an insatiable deity, but it continued to lag behind the consumption of civilizational competitors, and more and more of the beginnings of intangible wealth were sacrificed to it. The system comparison itself was proposed to be carried out according to the parameter in which Soviet society obviously lagged behind.
In this respect, the “perestroika” turned out to be, in essence, a “rebellion of the well-fed,” creating in their desires a salad of “sturgeon with the constitution”.
The onset of the “reforms” in practice was only a frank refusal of the state from all its obligations towards society, and the refusal of society from its obligations towards a person. In this regard, it is really difficult to invent something more inhuman and cannibalistic than Russia in the beginning of the 90s.
Inclusion in the agenda of the principle of "equity of development", if it takes place, raises the question of bringing society to the responsibility of the person.
What does this mean in the end?
In general, the classical formula about the inadmissibility of turning a person into a means and its significance solely as a goal is obvious, as well as the classic and key Marxist position that the conditions for the free development of the individual are a condition for the free development of all.
In the most immediate, first approximation, the “state of justice”, as well as the “policy of sociality”, is a certain functional provision of social stability, which is unattainable with a high degree of property differentiation and social tension.
In this respect, sociality itself, “caring for a person” may well be both the care of paternalistic, the care of the slave, the care of the servant, and the care of the instrumental - the care of the means. In all these cases, there is, in fact, no person here: there is a means or object of care, a person is not derived as the intrinsic value of society and history, but as the value of someone who is the true owner of the society. This is a concern for the means or object, the person himself disappears from the data of seemingly socialized relations.
He is absent as a subject, absent as a person, absent as an independent beginning of development. He is important not in his aspirations, not in the elevations of his abilities, but only in two respects: as having the qualities of satisfaction (and therefore - loyalty) and the quality of working capacity (and therefore - serviceability). Although, compared with the conditions of wildness (both of the original capitalism of Europe and the Russian wildness of 90), this in itself is a huge leap forward.
As such, they include:
guarantees of biological existence, that is, guarantees that a person has food, housing and clothing that correspond to modern ideas about a decent life;
guarantees of maintaining his health, that is, guarantees of affordable and high-quality medical care. In other words, in a society that assumes such obligations, there should be either free medicine, or such a really secured minimum level of income, at which paid medicine becomes available in all its main manifestations;
guarantees of formation and ensuring its efficiency and effectiveness, which, in addition to maintaining its health, implies the formation of a person as a carrier of labor - that is, guarantees of essentially free general and vocational education.
This triad is leading. But here, on the same basis, should be included guarantees of employment and the provision of old age, and not depending on the amount of labor contribution during the life.
In this regard, the “justice of development” itself can be defined as a principle and a phenomenon through the three points mentioned: at the first level, it’s the society’s recognition of responsibility for the conditions of human development, and at the second level (as socialism itself), public recognition of a person is not only an object of care, but a subject and the intrinsic value of society, finally, on the third - the historically accessible embodiment of the Marxist ideal of communism.
In this regard, before resolving issues of funds, it is more important to determine the priorities they should serve.
And one of the problems that it needs to solve at the same time is to eliminate the social and historical-national injustice to which the overwhelming majority of the country's population has been subjected, when in fact, against their will and without their consent, they took away the previously achieved level of social justice, and the country, and the socio-economic system, and its tomorrow — its historical and political identity was taken away.
Why is the United States not considering Russia now?
For the American consciousness, the comprehension of the other as a possible friend begins with the flick of the cocked Colt hammer put to the head that stores this consciousness. Simply because a person unable to put a revolver to their head is not perceived as equal and worthy of respect.
Once the United States perceived the USSR in the form of a “brave guy.” Then - "strong guy." Under Reagan, in the guise of a “bad guy.” Under Gorbachev, in the form of a "stupid guy." Then - first of all, the "weak guy." Post-Soviet Russia for the elite, and not only elite, US consciousness is a country:
- the first, giving up the fight, surrendering;
- the second, who refused to fight and surrendered at the moment when there were absolutely no grounds for this;
- third, it is a country that allows itself to seriously count on the fact that there are any other norms of relations in the world, apart from relations “by force”;
- fourth, it is a country that abandoned its ideals, the path chosen by it;
- the fifth, betrayed her dream.
Also, this is a country, unlike the United States, which failed to defend its integrity. Unresolved and unable to suppress insurrections, allowing herself
humiliate your past. That is, a country capable of doing what the US mentality has always despised. And what the United States would never have done.
To resist the Western coalition - Russia needs to do what its enemy is not capable of doing, as it is clear today - to resolve issues of justice: both social, historical, and related to self-identification. This work began with the fact that today Russia does not have an image of moral leadership and social justice. Russia will be able to win the confrontation with the Western coalition only by restoring the image of the bearer of a higher level of social justice and moral superiority. Moreover, this is necessary both in order to become the center of attraction for all countries and currents striving to get rid of the dictates of the West, and because the current Russian government that has accepted the challenge will not be able to hold out in this confrontation if it does not rely on strong social policy and support from the population. ... Support of those on whom, in the words of V. Putin, "the country rests": worker, peasant, teacher, doctor, engineer.
In this respect, “developmental justice” implies:
The recognition of a person as a subject and as guarantees thereof requires guarantees of the human right to participate in the affairs of society, and not only in the sense of a formal right to send certain electoral procedures, but also as guarantees of the real possibility of “knowing everything and judging everything reasonably”;
but this recognition requires guarantees of the right not only to political participation, but also to creative cooperation, that is, not only as an element of the total labor force, but also as a subject with the rights to develop and improve the social system, to promote and the implementation of their creative projects;
- and in its further development - guarantees of the right to human development, that is, society sees it as a goal and undertakes the obligation to create conditions for its rise, change for the better, as it understands it.
In other words, if at the level of the first, a kind of paternalistic sociality, the main thing in which society is interested, or rather the dominant subject in it, is to have a satisfied and efficient person as a result of his social activity, that is, not rebellious and ready to use in the interests of the dominant in the society of the beginning, then at the level of humanistic sociality the society recognizes its interest and its duty to have both the result and the goal of its social activity as a “transforming person”, and not manipulated and used.
In the first case, the community is valuable person views the world as basically completed, and not striving for it a substantial change, the world recognizes the "best of all possible worlds." In the second case, he values the person who does not recognize this world as the best and strives to create a new, better world.
This guarantee may consist both in the recognition of the human right to destruction and the right to creation.
The first aspect begins to dominate, if installed on the formation of man "distracting" society does not give him a real opportunity, real production means change and improve the world, convert and create it. Then this "rebellious people" begins a revolt against the conditions in which he is placed, which call his creativity, but do not allow for it.
The second aspect is realized when a person is given adequate means of production such transformation, ie change production, and created tools that allow for creative creative process. Thus, the real removal of a person from the immediate production process, as his link, and setting over this process as an organizer and controller begins. In its final form, this means the approval of a new era and a new social structure in its developed form.
Thus, social justice of a higher type means and requires at least two special guarantees: the first is a guarantee of the possibility of developing the needs and abilities of a person, whereas in the initial simple form, humanism required only guarantees of satisfying directly existing needs, recognizing them as absolute in their present form (hence the pseudo-humanitarian requirements recognition of the right to any distortion of its shape humanity from the right to drug abuse and homosexual, to the right of suicide);
the second is a guarantee of the realization of a person's creative need, the creation of adequate means required to satisfy such a need, i.e., carrying out a radical reconstruction of production, leaving behind a person activities that require exclusively creative, heuristic labor, while transferring simple types of activity to modern technology.
Hence, developmental justice, in its relatively comprehensive understanding, means not only the elevation of sociality from the emphasis on improving distribution and consumption inherent in social democracy, to the developed type of sociality with an emphasis on improving production and creativity, but also the elevation of humanism from recognizing the intrinsic value of a given human condition until the recognition of the value of its uplifting creative development.
In general, this is precisely the requirement that ripens one way or another in the course of history and which is not satisfied by modern civilization. That is why the most successful and richest countries today are increasingly losing their credibility in the world. Just because the rest of the world sees them as carriers of wealth - but does not see the carriers of moral leadership and began carrying with them the possibility of reaching a new level of fairness.
The impending new global confrontation of the Russian Federation as "saved the Soviet Union" (Putin), and the Western coalition - the first in the traditional sense of the weak and poor second. But the second is in the phase of delegitimizing its moral authority. Thus, three forces are revealed in the world: the Western coalition, which has resisted Russia, and the rest of the world, who does not see moral leadership for the first, but does not feel either the strength or the embodiment of the answer to their requests for a new type of justice in the second.
Alone, Russia will not stand in opposition to the richest countries. In order to win, it needs to offer its peace, the highest understanding of justice that responds to its demands, to regain its moral leadership.
And for this, it is necessary to solve the issues of a new level of social justice in oneself, to present the image of a New Hope, to which the world will be drawn.
Equity problems are not solved exclusively through the sphere of distribution and redistribution. Redistribute can only be created wealth. The main question of justice is not how to divide - but how to produce. The truth is that a person is freed from self-submission to his own current consumption.